Reaction of Lines of the Rapid Cycling Brassica Collection and <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> to Four Pathotypes of <i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clubroot reaction of five Rapid Cycling Brassica Collection (RCBC) lines (Brassica carinata, B. juncea, B. napus, B. oleracea, and B. rapa) and 84 lines of Arabidopsis thaliana to pathotypes 2, 3, 5, and 6 of Plasmodiophora brassicae (as classified on William's system) was assessed. Also, the reaction of the Arabidopsis lines to a single-spore isolate of each of pathotypes 3 and 6 was compared with that of a field isolate. Seedlings were inoculated with resting spores of P. brassicae, maintained at 25 and 20°C (day and night, respectively), and assessed for clubroot incidence and severity at 6 weeks after inoculation. Several lines of A. thaliana and RCBC exhibited a differential response to pathotype but none of the lines were immune. Among the RCBC lines, B. napus was resistant to all of the pathotypes; B. oleracea was resistant to pathotypes 2, 3, and 5; B. carinata and B. rapa were resistant to pathotypes 2 and 5; and B. juncea was susceptible to pathotypes 5 and 6 and had an intermediate response to pathotypes 2 and 3. Line Ct-1 of A. thaliana was highly resistant to pathotype 2, Pu2-23 was highly resistant to pathotype 5, and Ws-2 and Sorbo were highly resistant to pathotype 6. These results indicate that the lines of RCBC and A. thaliana have potential for use as model crops for a wide range of studies on clubroot, and could be used to differentiate these four pathotypes of P. brassicae. The reaction of the RCBC lines to pathotype 6 was highly correlated with response under field conditions but the reaction to the single-spore isolates of pathotypes 3 and 6 was not strongly correlated with reaction to the field collections in the Arabidopsis lines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".